Joseph N. Fried, whose definitive if daunting book Debunked?: An auditor reviews the 2020 election―and the lessons learned I synopsized in the course of my discussion Yes, Virginia (Dare): The 2020 Election WAS Fraudulent—And GA GOP Leadership (Among Others) Are Complicit, has a Substack account. Generously, he has not put it behind a paywall. I must admit that until I signed up for his email notifications. I did not realize he wrote so often.
Today’s offering, Criminals in Black Robes, Feb 17, 2024, considers the question the matter of judicial recusal.
Recusal is not just a matter of ethics: It is a constitutional requirement.
According to the Cornell Law School.
“The Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution require judges to recuse themselves from cases in two situations:
- Where the judge has a financial interest in the case’s outcome.
- Where there is otherwise a strong possibility that the judge’s decision will be biased.
In either case, it does not matter whether or not the judge is actually biased. What matters is that even if the judge is not biased, the high probability of bias still damages the integrity of the judicial system. Any party in a lawsuit may request that a judge recuse him or herself.”
If a judge knowingly ignores these recusal requirements, he or she is flagrantly depriving the defendant or litigant of his or her constitutional rights. To me, that makes the judge a criminal…
He then discusses wildly unjudicial Tanya Chutkan, citing Trump’s lawyers completely correct assertion
”Judge Chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned. Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying.”
Letitia James:
Attorney General James ran for office with this promise:
“We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well.”
She also called Trump “an illegitimate president,”
and Arthur Engeron:
…an arrogant and hate-filled man, who is totally lacking financial, real estate, or accounting experience. Nevertheless, before hearing a single witness, or identifying a single victim, Engoron found Trump guilty of fraud…
When an appeals court ruled that the statute of limitations barred the prosecution of Trump with regard to several early years, Engoron should have dismissed the case, but … the judge found a way to partially circumvent the appeals court decision.
The concept of recusal has apparently been abolished.
Fried also considers Lewis A. Kaplan, the judge in the E. Jean Carroll case:
For hundreds of years there have been lawsuits in America, where one side wins and the other side loses. In the past, the loser retained his first amendment right to express his disagreement with the ruling. It was taken for granted. That changed in the court of Judge Kaplan, who presided over the defamation lawsuit of E. Jean Carroll.
Kaplan had previously allowed Carroll’s initial case by arbitrarily denying Trump the Presidential Immunity to which he was probably entitled.
Kritarchs have gone berserk in America, especially where Trump is concerned. No wonder the Democrats seem so confident about 2024.
Joe Fried CPA Election Central has other excellent essays, to which I hope to return.
